Re: 1588 Spanish Armada [16.01.14] V45 Fixes

[cairnswk]

...in a triple game very easy
you pick the third player of the other team and make a triple attack before he can ever play

OK pamoa, point considered...but:
1. that can be countered by the team forting their third team member's monarch in a teams game; remember a player has to lose their Monarch and non-treasury regions to be eliminated
2. If each player on a triple side allocates their drop numbers to their third player, giving them 2+3+3+3=11 on their side's 3rd player CV, that still means they have to conquer 6 monarch armies plus - let's say:
...Capitania -> Triumph - 9 armies (total 15)
...Capitania -> Santa Ana - 11 armies (total 17)
best comment i can offer is it's not possible. even with the best dice.
3. If this occurs in a quads game i.e. 4 players per side, it means 14 has to conquer say 15 or 17....at 15 still going to be very hard with best dice....you would have to win every assault.
4. overall, i'd say it would be better to wait until perhaps 3rd round to wipe a team opponent out, when treasury might provide better odds.

[cairnswk]

....
That player would still hold all of his non-Treasury regions (his supply ship/land base, command vessel, etc).
Cairns, it might be simpler to just state, "Players holding only Treasury Regions (not including a Monarch) will be eliminated". Just a suggestion.

Ah. not really nolefan5311. the requirement is non-treasury regions AND the monarch not being held for elimination and i prefer to keep that. thanks for the suggestion though.

Right, if a player loses all his non-Treasury regions and a Monarch, they lose the game (meaning they hold only Treasury regions). I worded it the way I did since the Monarch's could possibly be mistaken as a Treasury region since it's so close to the Treasury regions.So something simple like "players holding only Treasury Regions will be eliminated" is a little more succinct than it currently is. Or, maybe having the Monarch regions as having a distinguishing outline or make them a different color entirely?

OK, i understand the desire to be succinct.
I am going to do some re-design, and will consider this, but i have to offer that if it is worded your way, there will be questions about the monarch having to be held, since the monarch is in that treasury area of the map, so i am trying to make it even more clear as to what has to be held in order to be eliminated.

[cairnswk]

Version 20.
I've moved the layout of the Commanders and treasury to a horizontal one, so that there is no mental association that has to be made referencing the commanders all the time.
I hope this will work better.
And i'll tidy it up as i progress further...since we're not really at graphics stage yet.

Click image to enlarge.

[pamoa]

in the upper legend remove the elizabeth and philip images and put a shield and all his line of treasury to be clearer (drake?)
what about adding a cloumn of starting position between the monarch and the treasury?

[cairnswk]

in the upper legend remove the elizabeth and philip images and put a shield and all his line of treasury to be clearer (drake?)

That can be done to see how it looks...and whether anyone will understand it.

what about adding a cloumn of starting position between the monarch and the treasury?

why do this, what is your objective by doing it, don't give me half the story if you want something done.
the monarch is the starting position, what is the objective of placing a column between it and the treasury?

and pamoa...it would be nice to hear a please or thank-you from you occasionally
...to me sometimes (and i know it is not meant this way), it seems as though you're just making a lot of demands without using any verbal or emoticon (face-to-face) body language clues.
writing in this bland manner we don't get to experience the face-to-face contact and thus it seems very sterile without using please and thank-you.

[pamoa]

and pamoa...it would be nice to hear a please or thank-you from you occasionally
...to me sometimes (and i know it is not meant this way), it seems as though you're just making a lot of demands without using any verbal or emoticon (face-to-face) body language clues.
writing in this bland manner we don't get to experience the face-to-face contact and thus it seems very sterile without using please and thank-you.

first please accept all my apologies if you felt treated rude by me
as French speakers I can't put all the emotional correct input I want in my phrasing
so it tend to be more direct and can be misunderstood as blandness
I think you are our best contributor (all for free)
you are a great and very experienced mapmaker
I always have this in mind when I comment your maps
and I thought being direct would save you precious time
so yes you are ,

]what about adding a cloumn of starting position between the monarch and the treasury?

why do this, what is your objective by doing it, don't give me half the story if you want something done.
the monarch is the starting position, what is the objective of placing a column between it and the treasury?

as we discussed before about the monarch being killable in the first round
I thought adding a second non-bombardable starting position in the monarch zone would prevent it

[cairnswk]

...

]what about adding a cloumn of starting position between the monarch and the treasury?

why do this, what is your objective by doing it, don't give me half the story if you want something done.
the monarch is the starting position, what is the objective of placing a column between it and the treasury?

as we discussed before about the monarch being killable in the first round
I thought adding a second non-bombardable starting position in the monarch zone would prevent it

well, firstly thanks for your contributions, you know they are appreciated

I am not in favour adding this additional treasury column (unless someone else convinces me otherwise)...the treasury is already very strong for assaulting and forting once gained, and i think adding the extra column would throw it "over the top".
at some point there has to be some reliance on gaining the extra bonuses around the map also.
i still don't beleive that this is going to end in someone getting ousted in the first round in whatever format...once again someone might like to prove to me otherwise. did you understand my analysis above in previous reply?

[pamoa]

sure it has to be tested live to see if it is a weakness or a trap
you may have some complain about it but until you assume it for its ok
anyway this kind of complex map always need the live test to be adjusted
players will find all possible strategies and the winning ones
so it was just to give you all I had in mind so you can be even more convinced of your choice

[Winged Cat]

* consist of Bow & Stern
* the non-white sections are impassable
* Bow & Stern can assault each other & adjacent vessels or any player's Monarch (M) position e.g. Triumph B to Frobisher M or Medrano M
* are not part of the "Single Ships of same
Nation" bonus i.e. +1 for 9

There is no need for the sections I've bolded, and they can (ironically) come off as more confusing.

On the right side, "assault & fort" should be just "assault". Fort is implied, and can be affected by gameplay choices.

i'd like to leave the "fort" part in there as even though it is implied, it makes it distinctly more apparent what you can do.

Unless gameplay choices invalidate it, in which case the map is telling you wrong.

I've changed that in the text as below (i think it will be easier to code with any Monarch region)
Losing Condition: Players failing to hold any
non-treasury region and a Monarch region will be eliminated

So, any non-treasury region, even the non-special ship or land regions? Or do they need to be Monarch & non-treasury regions of the same flag? For instance, what if I had Drake and Aid instead of Drake and Swiftsure, would that be enough? (I think so, but just making sure.)

Are Elizabeth and Philip regions in play? Their graphics in "Hold a Monarch & entire Treasury" suggest they are, but I don't see army markings on them.

No, they are only representative of the two national sides in the map. They are non-playable regions but do have a representational connection with each Monarch region on each side.

In that case, might I suggest replacing their photos in the top row with small versions of the twelve monarch flags?

Changed that to " Hold a Monarch & corresponding Treasury...+11"
it means if you hold the entire column for each Commander you get +11 on top of whatever autodeploy bonus you earn in that column.

Especially in light of this. The photos imply that you have to hold all 6 columns for the +11.

[cairnswk]

Thanks for your continued comments, Winged Cat

* consist of Bow & Stern
* the non-white sections are impassable
* Bow & Stern can assault each other & adjacent vessels or any player's Monarch (M) position e.g. Triumph B to Frobisher M or Medrano M
* are not part of the "Single Ships of same
Nation" bonus i.e. +1 for 9

There is no need for the sections I've bolded, and they can (ironically) come off as more confusing.

I've removed i.e. +1 for 9
and changed player's to Commander's
That should work better.

On the right side, "assault & fort" should be just "assault". Fort is implied, and can be affected by gameplay choices.

i'd like to leave the "fort" part in there as even though it is implied, it makes it distinctly more apparent what you can do.

Unless gameplay choices invalidate it, in which case the map is telling you wrong.

You didn't identify for anyone reading this what gameplay choice you think might invalidate what the map says.
Even if fort is implied, then gameplay choices would also invalidate that, so i don't think it matters.

I've changed that in the text as below (i think it will be easier to code with any Monarch region)
Losing Condition: Players failing to hold any
non-treasury region and a Monarch region will be eliminated

So, any non-treasury region, even the non-special ship or land regions? Or do they need to be Monarch & non-treasury regions of the same flag? For instance, what if I had Drake and Aid instead of Drake and Swiftsure, would that be enough? (I think so, but just making sure.)

Same flag is not important. Drake and Aid would keep you from being eliminated, the same as Drake and Santa Cruz and PTL(B)
The idea of gameplay is that players should try to conquer as many positions as possible...this even means they might hold a command ship of the opposing nation.
And i've changed that whole text to "Losing Condition: Players failing to hold any non-treasury region and any Commander's Monarch region will be eliminated"

Are Elizabeth and Philip regions in play? Their graphics in "Hold a Monarch & entire Treasury" suggest they are, but I don't see army markings on them.

No, they are only representative of the two national sides in the map. They are non-playable regions but do have a representational connection with each Monarch region on each side.

In that case, might I suggest replacing their photos in the top row with small versions of the twelve monarch flags?

Changed that to " Hold a Monarch & corresponding Treasury...+11"
it means if you hold the entire column for each Commander you get +11 on top of whatever autodeploy bonus you earn in that column.

Especially in light of this. The photos imply that you have to hold all 6 columns for the +11.

I've removed the images completely and replaced the text with "Hold a Commanader's Monarch & corresponding Treasury".

[cairnswk]

sure it has to be tested live to see if it is a weakness or a trap
you may have some complain about it but until you assume it for its ok
anyway this kind of complex map always need the live test to be adjusted
players will find all possible strategies and the winning ones
so it was just to give you all I had in mind so you can be even more convinced of your choice

Yes, i realise some complaints will occur. That is what testing is about.
Appreciate your concern and trying to help, but i'd prefer not to add another column, and adjust the neutrals where needed if thate happens.

[cairnswk]

Version 21 with above changes.

Click image to enlarge.

[cairnswk]

Talk to me people....is there anyway that using the Commander's Monarch could be used as a conditional border for the new xml feature?

[nolefan5311]

Talk to me people....is there anyway that using the Commander's Monarch could be used as a conditional border for the new xml feature?

Can you elaborate a little more?

[cairnswk]

Talk to me people....is there anyway that using the Commander's Monarch could be used as a conditional border for the new xml feature?

Can you elaborate a little more?

Is there anyway this Conditional Border
could be used as feature in the gameplay?

[phantomzero]

...in a triple game very easy
you pick the third player of the other team and make a triple attack before he can ever play

OK pamoa, point considered...but:
1. that can be countered by the team forting their third team member's monarch in a teams game; remember a player has to lose their Monarch and non-treasury regions to be eliminated
2. If each player on a triple side allocates their drop numbers to their third player, giving them 2+3+3+3=11 on their side's 3rd player CV, that still means they have to conquer 6 monarch armies plus - let's say:
...Capitania -> Triumph - 9 armies (total 15)
...Capitania -> Santa Ana - 11 armies (total 17)
best comment i can offer is it's not possible. even with the best dice.
3. If this occurs in a quads game i.e. 4 players per side, it means 14 has to conquer say 15 or 17....at 15 still going to be very hard with best dice....you would have to win every assault.
4. overall, i'd say it would be better to wait until perhaps 3rd round to wipe a team opponent out, when treasury might provide better odds.

Just to throw some statistics into the conversation.

14 vs 15 wins 46.1% of the time
14 vs 17 wins 34.2% of the time

What are the non-special-color monarch-stamped ships (such as Swiftsure and Diana) good for, if they aren't wards against elimination?

They are "good for" because they are the 4th starting position that cannot be attacked from a Treasury position in the starting rounds of the game.
Done this way to ensure that players are not eleminated in very early rounds.
They are Commander stamped only for now to show starting positions.
They are part of the Non-treasury regions.

correct me if I'm wrong but
if in first round I successfully bombard the Monarch position from another player
he is eliminated without being able to even start to play

do you think that will be possible with monarch holding 6 armies and you only have 2 on commander plus whatever the drop is - Max 3

2 plus 3 drop is 5 vs 6 wins 25.3% of the time.

Am I reading this correctly? While those aren't incredible odds, one shouldn't have a 25% chance of losing before taking a turn.

Keep up the good work. I don't have a ton else to offer right now but wanted to comment on the dice odds that were being discussed.

[nolefan5311]

Talk to me people....is there anyway that using the Commander's Monarch could be used as a conditional border for the new xml feature?

Can you elaborate a little more?

Is there anyway this Conditional Border
could be used as feature in the gameplay?

lol, I know what the conditional borders that you were speaking of are, and they can be used on any map. I was seeking elaboration on how exactly you wanted it to work with the Commanders Monarch, as in, the Commanders ship can't attack X territories unless the monarch is held, etc.

[cairnswk]

thanks for commenting phantomzero...nive to hear some other's opinion.

...in a triple game very easy
you pick the third player of the other team and make a triple attack before he can ever play

OK pamoa, point considered...but:
1. that can be countered by the team forting their third team member's monarch in a teams game; remember a player has to lose their Monarch and non-treasury regions to be eliminated
2. If each player on a triple side allocates their drop numbers to their third player, giving them 2+3+3+3=11 on their side's 3rd player CV, that still means they have to conquer 6 monarch armies plus - let's say:
...Capitania -> Triumph - 9 armies (total 15)
...Capitania -> Santa Ana - 11 armies (total 17)
best comment i can offer is it's not possible. even with the best dice.
3. If this occurs in a quads game i.e. 4 players per side, it means 14 has to conquer say 15 or 17....at 15 still going to be very hard with best dice....you would have to win every assault.
4. overall, i'd say it would be better to wait until perhaps 3rd round to wipe a team opponent out, when treasury might provide better odds.

Just to throw some statistics into the conversation.

14 vs 15 wins 46.1% of the time
14 vs 17 wins 34.2% of the time

well, i am certainly not in those stats...my experience is that i have to have at least double to win i.e. 28 V 15 or 34 v 17
I don't doubt your word, but can you tell me where you got those stats from.. i'd be interested to see others
I'll have to then consider that further

What are the non-special-color monarch-stamped ships (such as Swiftsure and Diana) good for, if they aren't wards against elimination?

They are "good for" because they are the 4th starting position that cannot be attacked from a Treasury position in the starting rounds of the game.
Done this way to ensure that players are not eleminated in very early rounds.
They are Commander stamped only for now to show starting positions.
They are part of the Non-treasury regions.

correct me if I'm wrong but
if in first round I successfully bombard the Monarch position from another player
he is eliminated without being able to even start to play

do you think that will be possible with monarch holding 6 armies and you only have 2 on commander plus whatever the drop is - Max 3

2 plus 3 drop is 5 vs 6 wins 25.3% of the time.

Am I reading this correctly? While those aren't incredible odds, one shouldn't have a 25% chance of losing before taking a turn.

Keep up the good work. I don't have a ton else to offer right now but wanted to comment on the dice odds that were being discussed.

i agree one shouldn't have those odds.
please offer more if you have them and can lend weight to any discussion

[cairnswk]

...lol, I know what the conditional borders that you were speaking of are, and they can be used on any map. I was seeking elaboration on how exactly you wanted it to work with the Commanders Monarch, as in, the Commanders ship can't attack X territories unless the monarch is held, etc.

well, really i was searching for ideas....i.e allowing other input into what might be possible...so go ahead and fire somethings at me.
no, not rocks

[Winged Cat]

Thanks for your continued comments, Winged Cat

Hey, someone thought this was front page sidebar worthy, I figured I could toss in a couple cents where I saw 'em. This may be my last batch for this map, though. You've made a lot of progress.

I've removed i.e. +1 for 9
and changed player's to Commander's
That should work better.

Still no need for "Commander's" (because Monarch position is Monarch position), but it's better than "player's". It works.

On the right side, "assault & fort" should be just "assault". Fort is implied, and can be affected by gameplay choices.

i'd like to leave the "fort" part in there as even though it is implied, it makes it distinctly more apparent what you can do.

Unless gameplay choices invalidate it, in which case the map is telling you wrong.

You didn't identify for anyone reading this what gameplay choice you think might invalidate what the map says.
Even if fort is implied, then gameplay choices would also invalidate that, so i don't think it matters.[/quote]

True, and this is a minor thing. It's none of the current gameplay choices - just thinking in terms of future-proofing here.

And if you're looking for ideas for conditional borders: if you hold a Monarch on one side, you can attack between that side's supply ships and/or land bases. (Because they are supposed to be allies, after all...)

[pamoa]

2 plus 3 drop is 5 vs 6 wins 25.3% of the time

I agree one shouldn't have those odds

what would be an acceptable percentage 10%, 5%, ... ?
phantomzero can you convert it in 5 vs ?

Talk to me people....is there anyway that using the Commander's Monarch could be used as a conditional border for the new xml feature?

just a raw idea
maybe you need to hold the let say +3 treasury to be able to bombard from your ship
like you need money to buy powder and guns
or any variation of this idea that money trigger some gameplay feature
the idea is to link the board with the treasury
so you have to develop on both side
but maybe you shouldn't start to change all your gameplay now

and some nitpicking remarks
shouldn't it be Monarchs' Commanders as it is the monarch who "own" the commanders ?
above the treasury lines I would have written "Monarchs' Commanders | earnings are cumulative"
for me it is important you indicate on the board where the commanders are
first line of the treasury legend you also need to change Monarch to Monarchs' Commanders

I know those complex map are a hell for legend phrasing
but the straighter they are the less complain you will get
keep in mind foreigner may not master too complex English phrases
hold on you have a great map

[sannemanrobinson]

Talk to me people....is there anyway that using the Commander's Monarch could be used as a conditional border for the new xml feature?

just a raw idea
maybe you need to hold the let say +3 treasury to be able to bombard from your ship
like you need money to buy powder and guns
or any variation of this idea that money trigger some gameplay feature
the idea is to link the board with the treasury
so you have to develop on both side
but maybe you shouldn't start to change all your gameplay now

Involving money would make it too complicated I think. As a conditional border you also do not spend the money. An other idea is to use the beacons as a condition before an English ship can bombard. There are twice the number of beacons from the number of ships so if one of the two closest beacons to a ship is lit it can bombard.

[nolefan5311]

I think there are quite a bit of possibilities with the Conditional Borders, but I think the one that makes the most sense to me is that you cannot attack a Monarch unless you hold one of the two regions of his Command Vessels.

Another possibility is that someone can't advance up the Treasury unless they hold both regions of the Command Vessel. For instance, I take the first Treasury Region on my first turn, but my CV is taken on the next turn, and I have to take my CV back before I can advance further.

[Nola_Lifer]

I think there are quite a bit of possibilities with the Conditional Borders, but I think the one that makes the most sense to me is that you cannot attack a Monarch unless you hold one of the two regions of his Command Vessels.

Another possibility is that someone can't advance up the Treasury unless they hold both regions of the Command Vessel. For instance, I take the first Treasury Region on my first turn, but my CV is taken on the next turn, and I have to take my CV back before I can advance further.

I like this idea. Also, nice change in the movement of Treasury. One other thing, Hull is a bit hard to read.

[cairnswk]

...
And if you're looking for ideas for conditional borders: if you hold a Monarch on one side, you can attack between that side's supply ships and/or land bases. (Because they are supposed to be allies, after all...)

OK, worthy of consideration.

just a raw idea
maybe you need to hold the let say +3 treasury to be able to bombard from your ship
like you need money to buy powder and guns
or any variation of this idea that money trigger some gameplay feature
the idea is to link the board with the treasury
so you have to develop on both side
but maybe you shouldn't start to change all your gameplay now

That idea makes sense...so you're saying you need to hold +1M, +1T, and +3T before you can bombard from your ship...is that correct?

and some nitpicking remarks
shouldn't it be Monarchs' Commanders as it is the monarch who "own" the commanders ?

I examined that before i changed it...and had what you suggested, but then i looked at it from the player's viewpoint, and each player is playing as a commander, and there are 6 commanders per monarch, even though each player has representation of a monarch, so i changed it to what it is now...but to bring it in line with the idea below...done!

above the treasury lines I would have written "Monarchs' Commanders | earnings are cumulative"

Done

for me it is important you indicate on the board where the commanders are
first line of the treasury legend you also need to change Monarch to Monarchs' Commanders

Done ...i think!

I know those complex map are a hell for legend phrasing
but the straighter they are the less complain you will get
keep in mind foreigner may not master too complex English phrases
hold on you have a great map

i'm holding on well....yes the wording needs to be correct...agreed. and thanks.